DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.1033#0043
THE FOREIGNERS.
43
another tomb. Here, then, in three cases different
evidences require us to take 1300 B.C. as the date,
and in one case a rather earlier and the last a
rather later age. Each discovery is entirely indepen-
dent, and is dated by different classes of objects, yet
all agree closely in the age to which we are to assign
this pottery. Nor is this age so very different to
what is already proposed by Furtwaengler, and
which is shown by the metal work of Egyptian fabric
found at Mykense. It will be noticed that this
pottery is like the earliest of Mykens, and not the
later and more ornate styles ; and hence we may now
feel that firm ground has been reached for dating the
beginning of the pottery of Mykenas and Thera to
about 1300 B.C.
The other styles of pottery here are also instructive.
The pilgrim bottle of early Cypriote make (18), the
handle with lines (13), and the bands with wavy lines
between (n, 14), which are both characteristically
Cypriote: the only two bits of animal figures (9,
12); and the remarkable rude figures (2, 3, 5, 6, 16,
and XXI, 47 from a tomb), like those of Mykenas.
All of these well-known types are found intermingled
in the town which we have seen good reason to date
between 1400 and 1200 B.C. So far as a difference
in age can be detected it seems as if the later—north
—town, which we have seen is more likely to be of
the time of Ramessu II, contained but little of the
buff (figs. 1 and 7), and mostly the white pottery with
black lines, the Cypriote (figs. 8 to 14, and 18). So
this may point to a first settlement of JEgean races,
and a later influx of Cypriotes. At Kahun also
some fragments of Mediterranean pottery were found,
all dissimilar to those of Gurob ; but as they were
none of them on the floors of the chambers, or in
unequivocally early positions, they may be later
intrusions, and dropped by chance passers, and some
are almost certainly late. It is a fair question, how-
ever, if some of them may not be of the Xllth
dynasty, a question which we may hope to settle in
further work there.
83. Finally, the most important remains of foreign
influence here are the signs found scratched on the
pottery, some done by the potter before baking
(marked P in the copies), others marked by the
owners, probably with flint scrapers. Those found at
Kahun are on PL XXVII, those from Gurob on
PI. XXVIII. First, with regard to the age of these
marks. At Kahun on a large jar sunk in the floor of
a chamber, to store corn or water in, one sign (141)
was found ; above it in the room were tools (find 53)
and a papyrus of the Middle Kingdom. Hence the
mark must be as old as the use of the house in the
Xllth dynasty. In a pit in the floor of a room was
found a beautiful spoon-handle with a lion's head,
and a plain amethyst scarab, both of the Xllth
dynasty style, and a potsherd marked (21). In a pit
in the floor of another room was broken pottery, with
the marks 42, 95. In another place with two pieces
of glazed figures of the style of the Xllth dynasty,
were found pots with the marks 39, 53, 132. And in
the temple foundation deposits of Usertesen II were
potter's marks on the jars, 125, 126. These cases are
all proved by these evidences to be of the Xllth or
perhaps XHIth dynasty. But a far stronger kind of
proof, though not so individual, is given by the
character of the pottery on which the marks are
found. All the pottery of the Xllth dynasty is
characteristically different from any later kind, both
in forms, in paste, and specially in the streaking
upward inside by the fingers. And these marks are
incised on this class, which cannot be mistaken for
that of any subsequent age. No stronger proof—or
less open to casual error—could be given for the age
assigned to these marks.
At Gurob two marks were found on potsherds in a
rubbish-hole, which had been built over when the
houses were begun on the ruins of the temple, prob-
ably by Khuenaten: these marks (XXVIII, 23, 42)
therefore date from about 1370 B.C. The same kind
of proof is given here, as at Kahun, by the pottery.
The sherds on which the marks are found are exactly
like the pottery at Tel-el-Amarna of the end of the
XVIIIth dynasty, and quite different in form and
material to the pottery of the XXIInd or any later
age.
84. I do not propose now here to enter on an
analysis of these characters. That is a research
which would occupy weeks or months; but my
present duty is to place them before those who can
discuss them, with all the collateral information,
while I hurry back to rescue whatever else may
remain in these towns. It may clear the subject to
briefly point out what the existing beliefs and theories
are ; as we can then see in what way the apparent
evidence of these discoveries agrees or disagrees with
our expectations, and what we should accept as
probable, or regard with doubt.
It has been generally agreed for many years past,
that De Rouge's theory of the origin of the Phoeni-
cian alphabet—and with it the Greek and Western
alphabets—from the Egyptian hieratic writing, is the
F 2
43
another tomb. Here, then, in three cases different
evidences require us to take 1300 B.C. as the date,
and in one case a rather earlier and the last a
rather later age. Each discovery is entirely indepen-
dent, and is dated by different classes of objects, yet
all agree closely in the age to which we are to assign
this pottery. Nor is this age so very different to
what is already proposed by Furtwaengler, and
which is shown by the metal work of Egyptian fabric
found at Mykense. It will be noticed that this
pottery is like the earliest of Mykens, and not the
later and more ornate styles ; and hence we may now
feel that firm ground has been reached for dating the
beginning of the pottery of Mykenas and Thera to
about 1300 B.C.
The other styles of pottery here are also instructive.
The pilgrim bottle of early Cypriote make (18), the
handle with lines (13), and the bands with wavy lines
between (n, 14), which are both characteristically
Cypriote: the only two bits of animal figures (9,
12); and the remarkable rude figures (2, 3, 5, 6, 16,
and XXI, 47 from a tomb), like those of Mykenas.
All of these well-known types are found intermingled
in the town which we have seen good reason to date
between 1400 and 1200 B.C. So far as a difference
in age can be detected it seems as if the later—north
—town, which we have seen is more likely to be of
the time of Ramessu II, contained but little of the
buff (figs. 1 and 7), and mostly the white pottery with
black lines, the Cypriote (figs. 8 to 14, and 18). So
this may point to a first settlement of JEgean races,
and a later influx of Cypriotes. At Kahun also
some fragments of Mediterranean pottery were found,
all dissimilar to those of Gurob ; but as they were
none of them on the floors of the chambers, or in
unequivocally early positions, they may be later
intrusions, and dropped by chance passers, and some
are almost certainly late. It is a fair question, how-
ever, if some of them may not be of the Xllth
dynasty, a question which we may hope to settle in
further work there.
83. Finally, the most important remains of foreign
influence here are the signs found scratched on the
pottery, some done by the potter before baking
(marked P in the copies), others marked by the
owners, probably with flint scrapers. Those found at
Kahun are on PL XXVII, those from Gurob on
PI. XXVIII. First, with regard to the age of these
marks. At Kahun on a large jar sunk in the floor of
a chamber, to store corn or water in, one sign (141)
was found ; above it in the room were tools (find 53)
and a papyrus of the Middle Kingdom. Hence the
mark must be as old as the use of the house in the
Xllth dynasty. In a pit in the floor of a room was
found a beautiful spoon-handle with a lion's head,
and a plain amethyst scarab, both of the Xllth
dynasty style, and a potsherd marked (21). In a pit
in the floor of another room was broken pottery, with
the marks 42, 95. In another place with two pieces
of glazed figures of the style of the Xllth dynasty,
were found pots with the marks 39, 53, 132. And in
the temple foundation deposits of Usertesen II were
potter's marks on the jars, 125, 126. These cases are
all proved by these evidences to be of the Xllth or
perhaps XHIth dynasty. But a far stronger kind of
proof, though not so individual, is given by the
character of the pottery on which the marks are
found. All the pottery of the Xllth dynasty is
characteristically different from any later kind, both
in forms, in paste, and specially in the streaking
upward inside by the fingers. And these marks are
incised on this class, which cannot be mistaken for
that of any subsequent age. No stronger proof—or
less open to casual error—could be given for the age
assigned to these marks.
At Gurob two marks were found on potsherds in a
rubbish-hole, which had been built over when the
houses were begun on the ruins of the temple, prob-
ably by Khuenaten: these marks (XXVIII, 23, 42)
therefore date from about 1370 B.C. The same kind
of proof is given here, as at Kahun, by the pottery.
The sherds on which the marks are found are exactly
like the pottery at Tel-el-Amarna of the end of the
XVIIIth dynasty, and quite different in form and
material to the pottery of the XXIInd or any later
age.
84. I do not propose now here to enter on an
analysis of these characters. That is a research
which would occupy weeks or months; but my
present duty is to place them before those who can
discuss them, with all the collateral information,
while I hurry back to rescue whatever else may
remain in these towns. It may clear the subject to
briefly point out what the existing beliefs and theories
are ; as we can then see in what way the apparent
evidence of these discoveries agrees or disagrees with
our expectations, and what we should accept as
probable, or regard with doubt.
It has been generally agreed for many years past,
that De Rouge's theory of the origin of the Phoeni-
cian alphabet—and with it the Greek and Western
alphabets—from the Egyptian hieratic writing, is the
F 2